Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
Mead Lovers Digest #1038
From: mead-request@talisman.com
Errors-To: mead-errors@talisman.com
Reply-To: mead@talisman.com
To: mead-list@talisman.com
Subject: Mead Lover's Digest #1038, 23 August 2003
Mead Lover's Digest #1038 23 August 2003
Forum for Discussion of Mead Making and Consuming
Dick Dunn, Digest Janitor
Contents:
Re: Dirty Sugar ("Dan SCHULTZ")
vodka? ("tugger")
Jo's stuck mead (Russ.Hobaugh@erm.com)
sugar, Crabtree, oxygen, stirring starters, etc. (ALAN MEEKER)
Re: Mead Lover's Digest #1037, 21 August 2003 ("john doerter")
Change of address (Nathan Wallace-Gusakov)
RE: Mead Lover's Digest #1037, 21 August 2003 ("Bob Garrett")
Just bottled one. ("Murphy-Marsh, Leigh")
Re: Mead Lover's Digest #1037, 21 August 2003 (Zertwiz@aol.com)
Re: Thor's Mead-lackluster (Dave Polaschek)
Re: Mead Lover's Digest #1037, 21 August 2003 (JayAnkeney@aol.com)
Starter Gravity for Aerobic Yeast Propagation (apte@parc.com)
Re: Dirty Sugar (Robert Sandefer)
Re:Lackluster Mead (Robert Sandefer)
NOTE: Digest appears when there is enough material to send one.
Send ONLY articles for the digest to mead@talisman.com.
Use mead-request@talisman.com for [un]subscribe/admin requests.
Digest archives and FAQ are available at www.talisman.com/mead. There is
a searchable MLD archive at hubris.engin.umich.edu/Beer/Threads/Mead
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Dirty Sugar
From: "Dan SCHULTZ" <s_danno@msn.com>
Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2003 11:01:38 -0700
Jo, in response to your concern about refined sugar, you are taking the
alarmist position that many groups spew without looking at the real data
behind the situation. I'm not trying to turn this into a political
debate but it's amazing how often rumors from alarmists are spread and
no one bothers to look at the facts. Jeff pointed you in the direction
of facts but you failed to read any of them in preference of believing
rumors that your pseudo-Doctor and tree hugging friends tell you.
If you look at the refining of sugar from chemistry point of view, you
will find that pure sugar is pure sugar. The chemicals used to refine
sugar have nasty names but they are naturally occurring chemicals that
you ingest daily from all food types. Did you know apples contain
arsenic? In fact, the refining actual removes more impurities than it
adds that's why it's called refining! In the end, the sugar is pure
sucrose that would not crystallize properly and be able to be ground
into the powder that you use at your table unless it were quite pure. To
compare sugar refining to petroleum refining shows your lack of
understanding of chemical processes. The end product in oil is rarely
pure, intentionally.
You can keep your views that unrefined sugar is better for you but in
actuality, you'll find that it has more trace elements that can harm you
than refined sugar will. I suggest you spend some time at
www.sucrose.com and not at your medicine man doctor to learn real facts
(most Doctors make poor Chemists). The links there are great sources of
information and FACTS.
- -Dan Schultz
------------------------------
Subject: vodka?
From: "tugger" <tugger@netreach.net>
Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2003 14:19:39 -0400
In reading Ken Schramm's book on page 32 near the top he
refers to having your "vodka at hand". I have not read the
book in detail but have not found vodka referred to
elswhere. In several mead/melomel recipes I have seen
referrence to a small amount of vodka. I assume this is to
be added to the mix ( vs drinking it while making the must)
but can anyone explain the purpose. I need a melomel recipe
that does not use sulfites/camden tablets as my wife may be
allergic to sulfites. Would like to combine freshly frozen
plums and apple juice. any suggestions?
thanks.
------------------------------
Subject: Jo's stuck mead
From: Russ.Hobaugh@erm.com
Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2003 14:57:09 -0400
Jo, what is the gravity reading on your mead? If you are down around
1.000 your mead is probably done fermenting. Either way, let it sit
and clear for several months. Since you had a secondary fermentation,
you should have a blanket of CO2 to protect the mead as it clears.
By waiting to bottle, you get a much cleaner finished product, plus
you can let the mead bulk age. Be patient--I bottled my first mead
(strawberry melomel)way to soon, and had 1/4" of sediment in every bottle.
Russ Hobaugh
Goob' Dog Brewery, Birdsboro PA
Original post:
I think my first batch of mead has stopped fermenting. It took about a
week and half for primary fermentation (quite vigorous and lively).
After about a half inch of sediment had settled at the bottom I racked
it into a clean Damme Jeanne where it very gently continued for another
week. Now it seems to have stopped. I have read a lot about fermentation
starting again if you just wait a bit. Is it worthwile or do I bottle it
now?
It still seems a bit murky, a bit like looking at a really cold glass of
dark white wine. Translucent but still opaque. How does it clear up.
Greetz
Jo
------------------------------
Subject: sugar, Crabtree, oxygen, stirring starters, etc.
From: ALAN MEEKER <ameeker@mail.jhmi.edu>
Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2003 18:10:47 -0400
Just a couple of comments on some recent posts.
First, regarding the use of stirring in making up a yeast starter - a recent
repost of something Fred Johnson posted to HBD read, in part, "I doubt that
simply stirring the culture will have a significant effect on the number of
yeast cells you will produce, keeping all other variables the same. What
one wishes to do is to keep the yeast metabolizing the sugar into biomass
and CO2 rather than alcohol and CO2. To achieve this, one must maintain LOW
sugar concentrations in the medium and provide oxygen. This will allow the
yeast to respire rather than ferment. If the glucose concentration in the
medium rises above 0.4% (approximately), the yeast will ferment the sugar,
no matter how much oxygen and stirring you provide."
Actually, stirring a yeast starter culture can have a /profound/ effect on
both the absolute numbers of yeast cells produced, as well as the quality
of those yeast. Both of these parameters are of importance in a yeast
starter, especially one to be used in mead making, as mead must is a pretty
stressful growth medium for yeast, particularly if no additional nutrient
source(eg- yeast nutrient, yeast energizer) is added. Vigorous stirring
of the starter culture during its growth helps to oxygenate the culture
which allows the culture to continue to divide, even under conditions of
anaerobic metabolism. Note here that anaerobic metabolism refers to the
fact that the yeast cells will be fermenting the sugar present, rather than
burning it aerobicaly even though oxygen is present. They are not using the
dissolved oxygen to burn the sugar for energy, at least not while there is
sufficient glucose areound. The key point is that oxygen /is/ required for
continuous cell division. The oxygen is utilized not for burning sugar,
but rather for synthesis of essential components of the cells' membranes,
without which cell division cannot be sustained. If you can get your hands
on one, a magnetic stirrer works well to aerate the yeast starter culture;
you just have to leave the lid on loosely so that air can get in. Forced
aeration or oxygenation works even better, but is more cumbersome and there
is increased risk of contamination.
Regarding the "sugar impurity" thread, which read, in part, "Let's not
forget it's a refinery process. I mostly picture oil rigs when I think
of refinery, and if memory serves me correctly, suger refinery is of a
similar viciousness.With "dirty" sugar I mean that it is certainly NOT 100%
pure. It contains traces (and often more than that) of all the intermediary
soluents and bleaches. It is not natural for a product to be this white(apart
from snow that is). If you take into acoount the enormous amounts of sugar
consumed in western society these days, this amounts to quite a lot of traces
altogether. I always use unrefined sugar or syrups (rice syrup is relatively
cheap and gives decidedly different taste)."
Whoa! Hold on there sparky... Remember that the term "refining" refers to a
process of successivly /purifying/ a substance. As far as the whiteness of
the sugar goes, this, and its crystalline state are actually indications
of its purity. The "dirtier" looking sugars and syrups are typically
forms of /partially/ refined sugars - those that have only undergone a
few of the refining procedures, and are actually much less pure than,
say, table sugar, that is almost 100% pure crystalline sucrose. The
actual process of refining cane sugar is about as benign as it gets,
and can hardly be described as viscious. Since sugar has the benefit of
being water soluble ther are no solvents (other than water) involved,
nor are there any bleaches used.
- -Alan Meeker
Baltimore, MD
------------------------------
Subject: Re: Mead Lover's Digest #1037, 21 August 2003
From: "john doerter" <jdoerter@comcast.net>
Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2003 17:17:48 -0500
> Subject: Dirty sugar in response to Jeff Renner
> From: "Olluyn Jo" <Jo.Olluyn@cronos.be>
> Date: Mon, 18 Aug 2003 09:08:14 +0200
>
> As far as I know, sugar refinery is the ore-mining of the food industry.
...
> Let's not forget it's a refinery process.
So is a distillery.
> I mostly picture oil rigs when
> I think of refinery, and if memory serves me correctly,
> suger refinery is of a similar viciousness.
> With "dirty" sugar I mean that it is certainly NOT 100% pure. It
> contains traces (and often more than that) of all the intermediary
> soluents and bleaches. It is not natural for a product to be this white
> (apart from snow that is).
ummm ok what about Salt? Beach sand near Pensacola florida?
>If you take into acoount the enormous amounts
> of sugar consumed in western society these days, this amounts to quite a
> lot of traces altogether. I always use unrefined sugar or syrups (rice
> syrup is relatively cheap and gives decidedly different taste).
www.mawer.clara.net/theprocess.html
lists the process from 1949 for sugar.
Excerpts from www.sugar.org/facts/grow.html
> In fact, raw sugar is an intermediate product from sugar cane
> and requires additional processing. It must undergo additional
> purification steps to be considered fit for consumption .
Chalk and Activated Carbon seem to be the main "Chemicals"
used in most process. As a Back Packer I'm big on filtering my water
through systems containing among other things activated carbon.
> Subject: Fermentation stopped -- now what?
> From: "Olluyn Jo" <Jo.Olluyn@cronos.be>
> Date: Mon, 18 Aug 2003 09:11:37 +0200
>
> I think my first batch of mead has stopped fermenting. It took about a
> week and half for primary fermentation (quite vigorous and lively).
> After about a half inch of sediment had settled at the bottom I racked
> it into a clean Damme Jeanne where it very gently continued for another
> week. Now it seems to have stopped. I have read a lot about fermentation
> starting again if you just wait a bit. Is it worthwile or do I bottle it
> now?
>
> It still seems a bit murky, a bit like looking at a really cold glass of
> dark white wine. Translucent but still opaque. How does it clear up.
>
> Greetz
>
> Jo
IMO Leave your mead alone in the Carboys for a few months and gravity
will pull down most of the little floaties that cloud your solution. I bottle
after extended times in the carboy, anywhere from 6 months to a year.
Rack every 6-8 weeks while sediment drops.
If you've never seen this before... it is a little non intuitive. It sits
around for a long time then seeemingly overnight large amounts of sediment
drop. I bottled my first mead after three months, I wound up with sediment
in the bottles and barely escaped bottle bombs as the S.G gravity cranked
on down to .993 from 1.004 at bottling time over 4 weeks.
One way of examining your mead is to shine a flashlight through it. This will
more accutely show particles.
Wassail!
John
------------------------------
Subject: Change of address
From: Nathan Wallace-Gusakov <velocity11@yahoo.com>
Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2003 16:35:44 -0700 (PDT)
I'll be moving to vtmead@yahoo.com
Please switch me over, thanks for the fantastic
digest!!!
-Nate
------------------------------
Subject: RE: Mead Lover's Digest #1037, 21 August 2003
From: "Bob Garrett" <robertmgarrett@earthlink.net>
Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2003 20:59:04 -0400
Jo-
Though not a sugar expert I do know a thing or two of the chemistry involved
in the refining process. You can find a fair amount of info on the internet
on the process of refining cane sugar, one simple explanation can be
reviewed at http://www.sugarweb.co.uk/sugar/refined/refiningcane.html
Most of the chemicals used are the same ones we use in wine making (chalk),
water filtration (activated carbon, ion exchange resins), or simply the
recycled cane extract. I feed a lot of sugar to my bees and when I make a
concentrated solution it is obviously NOT white or clear, but a little
brownish. This color derives mostly from impurities I believe, not the
sucrose itself. Pure 100% sucrose in solution would be pretty clear (I
think). Anyway, you seem concerned about the process of purifying the sugar,
which mostly uses non-hazardous chemicals, and not at all concerned with
consuming the more impure product, which contains all those impurities that
give the color. Many of those impurities are not well characterized or
studied with respect to health impact. At least with the more refined
product you have a better idea of what you are getting. On the oil refining
issue, there more you refine many chemicals from oil, the more you need to
worry because many are quite toxic or flammable. Sucrose is nearly
non-toxic, so the more pure it is, the better off you probably are.
As a honey producer my advice is if cane sugar bothers you to that extent,
use honey! Of course, who knows where the nectar came from. I've been told
some laurels can produce honey that is toxic, certainly there are many toxic
plant extracts. And, who knows what the farmer next door was spraying during
the nectar flow! And normally honey is not purified at all to remove any of
these nasties. Tastes mighty fine even so!
Bob
------------------------------
Subject: Just bottled one.
From: "Murphy-Marsh, Leigh" <Leigh.Murphy-Marsh@wmc.com>
Date: Fri, 22 Aug 2003 11:49:21 +0800
I just bottled a plain mead, first one I've made, and tried it out.
Tasted like gasoline so I'm expecting a long wait for it to improve.
Question; What is a good starting SG for a reasonably strong mead. I
just put one in (strawberry melomel) and got an SG of 1.062 before I
added the yeast. My beer calculator
http://www.realbeer.com/hops/kcalc_js.html tells me it is good for
between 6.8 to 8.2% alcohol. How high can I go with the honey to get the
strength up? I don't understand Brixs or degrees Plato so if there is a
set SG maximum to go to it would help me a lot.
One thing to note is that the mead, the strawberry melomel, tasted
absolutely delish before I added the yeast. I hope the flavour stays
that way after it is brewed out and bottled.
Cheers,
Leigh.
------------------------------
Subject: Re: Mead Lover's Digest #1037, 21 August 2003
From: Zertwiz@aol.com
Date: Fri, 22 Aug 2003 02:28:26 EDT
yes the winery that i work at uses them in there reds but the process has
somthing to do with making the color more stabble i might be off but i think
they sed it makes the tannons bond with the color eliments as far as i know
they usaly purge the oxygen out of the must after arating thow so its not
used for gitting the air in at leas tin out process ps we started
winning many more awards after we started doing this (for all you red wine
makers out there
In a message dated 8/21/2003 10:10:04 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
mead-request@talisman.com writes:
> Subject: Mead Lovers Digest: Oxygenation Systems
> From: "James Davis" <jjdavis@pgtc.com>
> Date: Sun, 17 Aug 2003 10:04:59 -0500
>
> Hello Everyone:
>
> I have been following the digest for a while now and am finally getting
> underway with my first batch of mead. I have made wine for quite some
> time but now on to the good stuff. I have a question regarding oxygen
> in the must during the first stage of fermentation. A lot of the
> recipies I have come across for mead suggest sloshing or stirring the
> must to oxygenate it for the aerobic stage of fermentation. I found a
> handy looking little gizmo on morebeer.com called an oxygenation system.
> It is an oxygen tank attached to a line with a .5 micron stone used to
> inject oxygen into the must. I know from reading that oxygen is
> essential in the first stage of fermentation and will help produce a
> stronger yeast colony when the levels of oxygen in the must are right.
> Is this item really useful? Has anyone out there used this or a similar
> device? Thanks for your help! James Davis
chris anderson
------------------------------
Subject: Re: Thor's Mead-lackluster
From: Dave Polaschek <davep@davespicks.com>
Date: Fri, 22 Aug 2003 10:22:05 -0500
Merlin wrote:
> About 3 months ago I whipped up a batch of Dave Polaschek's- Thor's Mead
> (ginger) 3 months later it is more like water than meade like and
> uninteresting. What can I do to save it?
I'm not sure which recipe of mine you're referring to, as I don't have any
recipes named "Thor's Mead".
Could you post or point to the recipe you used? That will make it a lot
easier to figure out what to do to liven up the mead.
- -DaveP
- --
Dave Polaschek - http://betternerds.com/ http://davespicks.com/
"Windows '98 is so similar to Windows '95 because Apple hasn't
invented anything worth copying since 1995." - Jakob Nielsen
------------------------------
Subject: Re: Mead Lover's Digest #1037, 21 August 2003
From: JayAnkeney@aol.com
Date: Fri, 22 Aug 2003 14:58:28 EDT
In a message dated 8/21/03 10:08:28 AM, mead-request@talisman.com writes:
<< I think my first batch of mead has stopped fermenting. >>
(A reply to Jo)
Jo,
Patience is crucial for proper mead fermentation. And some faith, too.
Believe me, just because you think "it seems to have stopped", the yeastie beasties
are still doing their thing and probably will continue for three months or so.
IMHO you may have racked it off the primary a bit prematurely. I hope you
brought enough active yeast along into the secondary. Personally, I have made
several award-winning meads without ever racking into a secondary.
And it should clear over time. If not, there are several fining materials you
can get at your local homebrew shop to help clear it. Again, I personally
rarely use it. After 3 or 4 months of fermentation, meads tend to clear
themselves in my experience. Maybe I just have magic water.
But you also said, "I racked it into a clean Damme Jeanne" and that peaked my
curiosity. What is a "Damme Jeanne"? Sounds interesting.
Jay Ankeney
------------------------------
Subject: Starter Gravity for Aerobic Yeast Propagation
From: apte@parc.com
Date: Fri, 22 Aug 2003 12:30:01 PDT
All,
The ideas being discussed for aerobic yeast propagation using Crabtree's effect
(MLD1037) is of questionable value for mead (tell me if I'm wrong!). In the
case of beer, only about a tenth of the solid extract is monosaccharide. The
Crabtree effect means that for solutions with a glucose level above 0.4%
the yeast will ferment regardless of the availability of oxygen. In beer,
this means a starter with less than .4% glucose, which may have as much as
4% total extract. Thus the use of 4P (1.016) starters. Assuming fructose
and glucose have about the same crabtree threshold, a mead started made with
glucose and fructose rich honey would have to have a very low extract--perhaps
as low as .4% (1.002).
Correct me if I'm wrong, but a honey-based aerobic starter would need a
clever setup to never overfeed the yeast.
raj
------------------------------
Subject: Re: Dirty Sugar
From: Robert Sandefer <melamor@vzavenue.net>
Date: Fri, 22 Aug 2003 18:01:40 -0400
I have a few points to add to the recent discussion on the nature and
characteristics of refined sucrose.
First, many solid organic compounds are white powders. For many compounds,
"white" is their "natural" color, and for such compounds, any color other
than white suggests impurities. Pure glucose is a white powder, and honey
is rarely "white". There are white inorganic compounds as well. Pure salt
(sodium chloride) is white.
Second, sugar refining is extracting a product (sucrose) from a biological
source (beets, cane), which has a variety of compounds. That's the name of
the game, and it differs little (in a qualitative sense) from the
production of other items--corn sugar, fructose syrup, salt, corn oil,
water, Vitamin C, Vitamin A, etc. The producer of each must decide how pure
they will make product (i.e., what is cost-effective and sellable). If one
counts the number of compounds (fewer compounds means more "pure"),
cornmeal is less pure than corn sugar, but both have their uses. In
addition, it does producers little good to enrage their consumers, so when
something is billed as "sugar" it is probably pretty much sugar.
Third, for the purposes of brewing, a pure ingredient may not be
neccessary. If you have a sucrose source that is 100.000000% sucrose, you
still have the water source's purity and that of every other ingridient to
worry about. So what if your sucrose is actually .00001% calcium carbonate
ion (for example)?
Fourth, centrifugation and crystalization are very effective at seperating
compounds. Thus, in organic chemistry lab, I had to due them over and over
and over...
Fifth, some pure chemicals (especially when used in industrial processes)
and some terms often get bad press. If I mention hydrochloric acid, some
people start worrying. Why? Because they start imagining horrible wounds,
etc. And, to an extent, concern is wise. A solution of 12M hydrochloric
acid can do some unpleasant damage. On the other hand, .1M hydrochloric
acid is not so bad. Hydrochloric acid is just hydrogen ions and chlorine
ions floating around in water. Does that sound so horrible? Salt water is
sodium ions and chlorine ions floating in water. A single difference
(sodium instead of hydrogen) and people imagine pasta water instead of
dissolving floors. "Acid" has come to be feared.
This of course is a silly example, but I think it shows that nomenclature
can confuse otherwise sensible people. (Heard any rumors about the
deleterious effects of dihydrogen oxide today? Horrible stuff. It
contributes to acid rain and environmental erosion. It has been found in
abundance at every drowning ever studied, and some researchers link it to
rusting in iron and steel. It's also known as water.) My point is that many
people read industrial (or just precise) descriptions of sugar refining (or
other processes) and start getting worried about the acids, bases, oxides,
and peroxides, and such concern is unwarranted. Orange juice is an acid;
that doesn't mean it isn't tasty or good for you. Education about the real
(and not just perceived) risks of various compounds and the concentrations
and exposure rates at which they become dangerous is useful.
Sixth, I found a website that describes sugar refining:
http://www.sbreb.org/brochures/SugarCoop/index.htm The participants seem
to be mostly lime, CO2, SO2, water, and sugar beets. I saw no mention of
"vicious" compounds. The lime seems to be used as sources of hydroxide ions
(OH-) and/or CO2. This suggests that even if sugar was "impure" that the
impurities are likely to be calcium carbonate (ever taken a calcium
supplement?), maybe calcium hydroxide, and perhaps SO2. Anything else
probably came from the beets/cane.
The conclusion to all of this is that I conclude that "pure" white sugar
very likely is a reasonably "clean" product, whose use should be moderated
by common sense.
Robert Sandefer
------------------------------
Subject: Re:Lackluster Mead
From: Robert Sandefer <melamor@vzavenue.net>
Date: Fri, 22 Aug 2003 18:05:41 -0400
Well, Merlin,
I would leave your mead alone until it was at least 2 years old. YMMV
Melamor aka Robert
------------------------------
End of Mead Lover's Digest #1038
*******************************
